I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST NOT'. Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.
LieGrue, strub > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license > > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;) > > +1 from me. > > > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by > copying in their license file. > > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice > file > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262 > > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded. > > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit : > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product > > includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement > > (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it > > there. > > > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file. > > > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to > > be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users > > do again this job which is insanely bad. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit : > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded > > dependency) include > > > > This product includes software developed at > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/) > > > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to > > declare any notice. > > > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad > > IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not > > sure it was that ok to completely drop it. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > yep, as written ;) > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>: > > Romain, > > > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right? > > > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > > Hi! > > > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7. > > > > Here is the staging repo: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049 > > The source distribution can be found here: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5 > > > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10). > > > > [+1] ship it > > [+0] meh, don’t care > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason} > > > > The VOTE is open for 72h. > > > > Here is my +1. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > >
